scm-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a creation operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the schedule is immediately active, what happens on duplicate names, or error conditions. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic 'create' action, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The parameter explanations are necessary given the 0% schema coverage. However, the formatting with 'Args:' and code-like examples is slightly verbose but earns its place by clarifying complex nested structures. No wasted sentences.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 4 parameters with nested objects, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains parameters well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., mutation effects, error handling) and output details. For a creation tool with this complexity, it should do more to compensate for missing structured data, but the parameter coverage raises it above minimal adequacy.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides detailed semantics for all 4 parameters: name (unique identifier), folder (location), schedule_type (with explicit format examples for recurring and non-recurring schedules), and tsg_id (optional with default). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could clarify data types or constraints more formally.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool creates a schedule object, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like scm_update_schedule (update) and scm_delete_schedule (delete), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from scm_get_schedule or scm_list_schedules, which are read operations. The purpose is clear but could be more specific about what a 'schedule object' entails in this context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing folder), when not to use it (e.g., for updating existing schedules), or refer to sibling tools like scm_update_schedule for modifications. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.